Skip to main content

M. Beatriz Fernández

Alberto Hurtado University

M. Beatriz Fernández is a faculty researcher at Alberto Hurtado University in Chile, where she serves as a director of a teacher preparation program. She received a Ph.D. in Curriculum & Instruction from Boston College. Her research focuses on education policy and social justice in teacher education. She has worked as an in-school consultant, lecturer, and coordinator for principal and teacher professional development programs. Dr. Fernandez has also researched teachers' participation in accountability policies and action research in teacher education. Her recent research (with colleagues) focused on the implementation of school networks in Chile. She is also a founder and a member of an activist organization against standardization in education in her country.

NEPC Publications

Review of Within Our Grasp: Achieving Higher Admissions Standards in Teacher Prep

Kate Walsh, Nithya Joseph, & Autumn Lewis
Within Our Grasp: Achieving Higher Admissions Standards in Teacher Prep

Based on a review of GPA and SAT/ACT requirements at 221 institutions in 25 states, a new report from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) recommends that states, institutions of higher education, and the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) maintain or establish a higher bar for entry into teacher preparation programs. The NCTQ report suggests that boosting teacher candidate entry requirements in ways they advocate would significantly improve teacher quality in the U.S.. Yet the report does not provide the needed supports for its assertions or recommendations. In addition, the report makes multiple unsupported and unfounded claims about the impact on teacher diversity of raising admissions requirements for teacher candidates, about public perceptions of teaching and teacher education, and about attracting more academically able teacher candidates. Each claim is based on one or two cherry-picked citations while ignoring the substantial body of research that either provides conflicting evidence or shows that the issues are much more complex and nuanced than the report suggests. Ultimately the report offers little guidance for policymakers or institutions.